Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region, Quezon City

PEDRAL RIVERA ISAGANI

Complainant,

-versus- NLRC NCR CASE NO. 05-06193-14

Hon. Galahad Makasiar

ROYALE FISHING CORP./NIÑO GATILA

Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------------------x

REPLY

COMPLAINANT, through counsel, and unto the Honorable Office, most

respectfully avers as follows:

In their Position Paper, respondent claimed that the complainant allegedly

“resigned” from his work. In support thereof, respondents introduced in evidence a
TYPEWRITTEN resignation letter (Annex E) evidently prepared IN ADVANCE by the
respondents where the name of the complainant was merely inserted in the BLANK
SPACES therein

Clearly, the claim that the complainant resigned deserve scant consideration.
Complainant CATEGORICALLY DENIES resigning from work. It is obvious that the
alleged resignation letter presented by the respondents are of their own making,
considering the fact that the name of the complainant was merely INSERTED in the
blank space provided therefor.

Complainant, a HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE, was actually duped into signing

various documents on the pretext that the same are needed for the release of his
13th month pay for this year. Now we know what those documents are for. To
reiterate, complainant CATEGORICALLY DENIES SIGNING ANY RESIGNATION
LETTER. In this regard, it must be noted that NO 13th month pay was ever given to
the complainant.

At any rate, it would be ILLOGICAL AND CONTRARY TO HUMAN NATURE

that the complainant would voluntarily resign and then IMMEDIATELY FILE A CASE
FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL. As ruled by the Supreme Court in the recent case of
VALDEZ vs. NLRC, 286 SCRA 87:

It would have been illogical for herein petitioner to resign and then file
a complaint for illegal dismissal. Resignation is inconsistent with the filing of
said complaint.

1
 In MOBILE PROTECTIVE & DETECTIVE AGENCY vs.ALBERTO G. OMPAD
(G.R. No. 159195, May 9, 2005), the High Court held that:

Moreover, it is a rule that resignation is difficult to reconcile with the

filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal. Hence, the finding that respondent's
resignation was involuntary is further strengthened by the fact that respondent
filed the instant case the day after the alleged tender of resignation.

In SHIE JIE CORPORATION vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 153148, July 15, 2005), it
was ruled that:

Moreover, the fact that respondents immediately filed a complaint for

illegal dismissal against petitioners and repudiated their alleged resignation
completely negated petitioners’ claim that they voluntarily resigned.

And in the earlier case of MOLAVE TOURS CORP vs. NLRC, (G.R. No.
112909, November 24, 1995, 250 SCRA 325) the Supreme Court held that:

By vigorously pursuing the litigation of his action against petitioner,

private respondent clearly manifested that he has no intention of relinquishing
his employment, which act is wholly incompatible to petitioner’s assertion that
he voluntarily resigned.

Be that as it may, the respondents still have the BURDEN of proving that the
complainant VOLUNTARILY resigned from work. As ruled by the Supreme Court in
the recent case of ELSA S. MALIG-ON vs. EQUITABLE GENERAL SERVICES,
INC. (G.R. No. 185269, June 29, 2010):

The rule in termination cases is that the employer bears the burden of
proving that he dismissed his employee for a just cause. And, when the
employer claims that the employee resigned from work, the burden is on the
employer to prove that he did so willingly. Whether that is the case would
largely depend on the circumstances surrounding such alleged resignation.
THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE
EMPLOYEE’S INTENT TO GIVE UP WORK. (Emphasis ours.)

In the case at bar, the facts of the case clearly show that the COMPLAINANT
HAS ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION OF GIVING UP HIS EMPLOYMENT.
Complainant was DISMISSED by the respondents after he was told to take a
FORCED VACATION without any valid reason. When he pleaded to be reinstated,
respondents ignored complainant’s pleas and told him to start looking for work
elsewhere. When he filed a complaint with the SENA, respondent Gatila boasted to
the hearing officer that the complainant can report to the office at any time. But when
the complainant reported for work, he was already BARRED by the security officer
from entering the company premises. Truly, complainant was illegally dismissed
from work. All of these acts committed by the respondents against the complainant
clearly made his continued employment IMPOSSIBLE, forcing the complainant to file
the instant case, akin to constructive dismissal.

2
 With regard to the claim that the complainant is a “seasonal worker” suffice is
to say that his payslips as attached to his Position Paper prove otherwise. As can be
clearly seen in his payslips, the complainant worked CONTINUOUSLY EVERY
MONTH since January 15, 2010 WITHOUT ANY STOPPAGE OF WORK.
Complainant is a regular employee as defined under the Labor Code as his work as
hatchman is absolutely necessary and desirable to the business of the respondents,
a company “engage primarily in the business of commercial deep sea fishing.”

Respondents’ claim that the complainant is a fixed term or contractual

employee likewise has no basis in law. Such alleged fixed term contracts are VOID
for being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and public policy as the
same were clearly resorted to by herein respondents in order “to PRECLUDE the
acquisition of TENURIAL SECURITY” by the complainant. As explained by the
Supreme Court in PRICE vs. INNODATA PHILS. INC., (G.R. No. 178505, September
30, 2008),:

Under Section 3, Article XVI of the Constitution, it is the policy of the

State to assure the workers of SECURITY OF TENURE and free them from
the bondage of uncertainty of tenure woven by some employers into their
contracts of employment. This was exactly the purpose of the legislators in
drafting Article 280 of the Labor Code – to PREVENT the circumvention by
unscrupulous employers of the employee’s right to be secure in his tenure by
indiscriminately and completely ruling out all written and oral agreements
inconsistent with the concept of regular employment. (Emphasis ours.)

The payslips also prove that the complainant was underpaid his salary.
Finally, individual respondent is clearly guilty of bad faith in view of his actions in the
dismissal of the complainant, entitling the complainant to damages. "The series of
discriminatory and oppressive acts of respondent xxx against (the complainant)
invariably makes respondent liable for moral damages under Art. 1701, which
prohibits acts of capital or labor against each other, and Art. 21 on human relations in
relation to Art. 2219 No. 10 and Art. 2220, all of the Civil Code." (SIBAL vs.NOTRE
DAME, NLRC (G.R. No. 75093, February 23, 1990)

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Office to render judgment in favor of the complainant and against the
respondents as prayed for in his complaint and position paper:

Quezon City, October 20, 2014.

ATTY. PEARLITO B. CAMPANILLA

Suite B 2nd Floor Overland Park Bldg.,
No. 245 Banawe St. cor. Quezon Ave., Quezon City
Roll 37522 / IBP Life 010564 2-3-12 Pasig
PTR 9019138 1-7-14 QC / MCLE IV - 0018064

Copy furnished by mail /courier due to time constraints and distance to:
NAVAL CACULITAN RAGUNJAN LAW OFFICES
Unit 836-837 City and Land Mega Plaza, ADB Ave. cor Garnet St., Ortigas Center, Pasig City